What Are All the 6x17 Camera Options Out There?

[abruzzi]

Oh, one other point with the Tomiyama - it has a really good viewfinder with level bolted onto it. A pleasure to use and impossible to lose. It makes it very possible to shoot handheld, esp. if you're stopped down.

And Kumar has one in the classifieds. Count me tempted—someone buy it before I do….

 

[xkaes]

Count me un-tempted. For that kind of cash, you can get a lot more of much more flexible gear.

 

[braxus]

The one reason I want 6x17 is for using 120 film, which is more common and easy to work with. I rarely ever use my large format gear, which is a Graflex Speed Graphic, for those that wanted to know. I want the 6x17 negative on 120. More film choices that way too. Easier developing. More shots one a roll than just 1 shot per sheet. Im in no rush to get the camera, but I'd like to at some point. The cheaper it is for me, the sooner I'd be able to get one. I'm still thinking of the H617 to be honest. I just dont know how one uses it per roll.

 

[JWMster]

braxus: Have been pondering this, too. So my thinking runs this way:

I bought a Chroma 6X17 to use with a 135mm LF (4X5) lens. Still getting used to it. Like the hybrid approach of cameras like this that DO NOT rely on viewfinders but instead offer ground glass. I like to see and focus directly so that's my deal.

However, the PULL of Nick Carver's videos however is now hitting kryptonite in cost and would require shifting out a lot of gear to whole movements thing that to me, it's worth thinking it through: 1) Can you scan the negs at home, 2) What's the film cost, 3) Available films, and all the rest.

FWIW, I like LF movements to handle some oddball stuff like converging lines in-camera. IF they don't bug you or the loss of negative space by keystoning in post.... then you're a lucky guy. So a LF camera with movement vs. a LF 6X17.....the 4X10 looks cheaper until you consider my other needs.

An Epson Wet Mount scan wouldn't fit on it and cost of film, film holders.... blah blah blah. Availability of LF film is basically 4X5 or 8X10. Sadly, 5X7 is special order outside of B&W and even there it's limited. But 5X7 seems to be the largest of the easy-to-fit-on-the-Epson Wet-Mount.... and I've found that a wet mount scan on an Epson 850 is just night and day better.... so can't go backwards and drum scanning? Seems to hit techs who don't care and can't do justice to the hardware (maybe I just have bad luck?).

Pushes a dude to lean into the availability of 120 film. Steve Lloyd's Chroma Camera is pretty decent for putting a toe into the format.... but if keeping movements is a deal, I'm thinking the 4X5 crop would not only get it done, but looks like the best option. Yes, Nick Carver bought a Shen Hao, but it's an awkward size piece of gear. And he didn't buy the folding option either. Chamonix could fill the bill but at more or less the same $'s. Flirting with the 4X10 idea ran up against all the other issues post development.

That leaves me to stick with the Chroma and the 4X5 crop. What's the sacrifice? So the same aspect ratio working from 4X5 film would be 1.75 X 5, and the diagonal is a 25% give up in your negative's real estate, and the square area space lost is about 33%. For now, I think that's manageable. Comparing 2X5 to 4X10 is a 100% give-up, duh. So that's a big deal theoretically, but from practical "carry issues" and post-processing.... just not realistic IMHO. The 4X10 is just not going to work at all is my conclusion.

So those are 2 thoughts. I'm looking at Chroma with probably another lens cone or so for all the times movements aren't needed. But if I do (need (movements), then just crop the 4X5. I've heard there's a thing about the image center'd now be in the wrong place, but I'm not sure how much of a deal that is given a camera with sufficient rise and fall to adjust. Might limit the scope of action for those movements; might not. But that's okay for now.

Maybe that helps?